Let's talk about the new system, did it work?

[Flosman]

I think it did and it will be more evident has time goes on. A lot has been made about taking college seniors late in round 1 thru 10 day and how it freed up money for the smart teams but I don't see it that way so much. I think what it really did is prevent teams from taking tough sign guys with those picks for fear of losing the allotment. But taking the 10k signs really does not free up enough money to operate the way teams have in the past. It is really going to be tough to create enough space to pay a guy 1st or even second round money late in the draft. I think over time you are going to see the best players available that are willing to sign will be taken first and when a player makes crazy demands he is just going to understand that the demand is going to either cost the player a ton of money or ensure that he goes into a later year's draft pool. This outcome is exactly what was intended. MLB has IMO set a system up that should allow the teams with the worst record get the best rated talent all things being equal and slow down the total cost of amateur talent.

I think it will probably help the quality of college baseball a little as I think a few more guys may stick around a little longer.

[Stotle]

It needs to be tweaked, but it's much better than the old system. Much. Better.

To be honest I don't understand how anyone who has spent any time looking at the changes could come to a conclusion other than "this new system is a huge advantage for the teams picking up front and the teams that can't hold on to their MLB talent."

[SrMeowMeow]

They just need to tease out the various abuses and I think it will be fine.

[Stotle]

They just need to tease out the various abuses and I think it will be fine.

What abuses did you see? I think the round 6-10 senior signs is an easy fix. The comp round will be smaller moving forward now that we have the new rules in full effect next year. We also get the lotto picks next year (which will be available to trade).

[hoosiers]

The new system seems to be an unqualified success, IMO.

We have:

- teams at the top of the draft getting first rounders to sign for significantly less than slot to free up $ for later

- teams at the bottom of the draft signing college seniors and punting on decent prospects in the 6-10 rounds to free up $ for HS/JuCo signs in round 11 and later

- overall spending kept in check

Seems like best teams got the best players in the early rounds, probably scooped up better players in the 6-10 rounds and still had $ to compete with the HS overslots after round 11. Further, no more Nick Delmonicos who might have been drafted between 30-80 holding teams hostage for $2M.

I don't really get the problem with senior signs. If some teams want to punt on that talent in rounds 6-10, that is their decision. IMO, the teams that save $ at the top of the draft have the opportunity to draft those HSers in rounds 6-10 that teams using the senior signs strategy are hoping will be available after round 10. Or those saving $ at the top of the draft can also draft senior signs in 6-10 and have MORE $ for HSers after round 10.

[MatthewW]

They just need to tease out the various abuses and I think it will be fine.

I have a feeling MLB probably doesn't like the 'punt' picks... That would seem to me to be the only real 'abuse'. Any chance we see a bonus 'floor' added to each top 10 round pick?

[Trackmaster]

Obviously this system is somewhat better than the old one. At least it creates some kind of cap or enforced slot. I just don't see why they didn't go all the way, and have hard ceilings for each pick that could not be exceeded. I would also like them to go one step further and hold the draft a week after the WS ends and require players who enter to sign a form declaring that they are pros and waive their rights to play as an amatuer, so we know what we're getting each year, and don't have the nonsense of players holding the teams who pick them hostage.

[jcarm]

Obviously this system is somewhat better than the old one. At least it creates some kind of cap or enforced slot. I just don't see why they didn't go all the way, and have hard ceilings for each pick that could not be exceeded. I would also like them to go one step further and hold the draft a week after the WS ends and require players who enter to sign a form declaring that they are pros and waive their rights to play as an amatuer, so we know what we're getting each year, and don't have the nonsense of players holding the teams who pick them hostage.

The bolded part would hurt too many players and would severely limit the amount of talent available. It would not be in the best interest of the players, the teams or the sport. For many players the result would be a bit similar to what is happening with the Korean high schooler who the Orioles tried to sign. The deal was not be approved, no one else is apparently willing to sign him and now he cannot play anywhere-his career seeming having come to an early end.

[Flosman]

Obviously this system is somewhat better than the old one. At least it creates some kind of cap or enforced slot. I just don't see why they didn't go all the way, and have hard ceilings for each pick that could not be exceeded. I would also like them to go one step further and hold the draft a week after the WS ends and require players who enter to sign a form declaring that they are pros and waive their rights to play as an amatuer, so we know what we're getting each year, and don't have the nonsense of players holding the teams who pick them hostage.

I don't like a hard cap system. I think they found a good middle ground here in that teams will find it very hard to have players make predraft deals to project that they are unsignable just to sign a deal much above slot late in the draft relevant to the players talent. It was a way for the haves to basically create extra high picks. As for players holding teams hostage I suspect those days may be coming to an end except for the high level HS guys. I think the new system makes players understand that their value is really tied to being picked early and postering is simply not going to help the player a lot. Appeal is a prime example of this, in that his posturing cost him 4 million dollars IMO.

[SrMeowMeow]

What abuses did you see? I think the round 6-10 senior signs is an easy fix. The comp round will be smaller moving forward now that we have the new rules in full effect next year. We also get the lotto picks next year (which will be available to trade).

"Abuses" was probably too strong a word but yes, wasting picks 6-10 is the main thing. It's not particularly bad in terms of talent distribution, it's just clearly bizarre.

[Stotle]

"Abuses" was probably too strong a word but yes, wasting picks 6-10 is the main thing. It's not particularly bad in terms of talent distribution, it's just clearly bizarre.

Yeah, that's an easy fix. I don't much care, as the right kids are getting the right money, but all you need to do is cut off the slot allotments at rd 5 and then have 500k to 1 mm available for the remainder of draft for signings over 100k. Something along those lines.

[Larry18]

Yeah, that's an easy fix. I don't much care, as the right kids are getting the right money, but all you need to do is cut off the slot allotments at rd 5 and then have 500k to 1 mm available for the remainder of draft for signings over 100k. Something along those lines.

I look at the 2011 draft and wonder how that would have played out with new system. With a shallow draft the slotting looks okay, but a deep draft would artificially lower a fair bonus for a 1-4 or 1-5 pick.

[Trackmaster]

The bolded part would hurt too many players and would severely limit the amount of talent available. It would not be in the best interest of the players, the teams or the sport. For many players the result would be a bit similar to what is happening with the Korean high schooler who the Orioles tried to sign. The deal was not be approved, no one else is apparently willing to sign him and now he cannot play anywhere-his career seeming having come to an early end.

So assume that doesn't apply to international players. How would that affect domestic players? Sure, the agents and players would hate it, but it would do wonders for the teams and competitive balance. It seems to work pretty well with the NFL and NBA.

[Trackmaster]

I don't like a hard cap system. As for players holding teams hostage I suspect those days may be coming to an end except for the high level HS guys. I think the new system makes players understand that their value is really tied to being picked early and postering is simply not going to help the player a lot. Appeal is a prime example of this, in that his posturing cost him 4 million dollars IMO.

You contradicted yourself. You said that you don't like the hard cap system, but you also said that you want players to be compensated by their draft position. You realize that's exactly what a hard cap slotting does.... only perfectly with no loopholes. What's your problem with it?

[Stotle]

I look at the 2011 draft and wonder how that would have played out with new system. With a shallow draft the slotting looks okay, but a deep draft would artificially lower a fair bonus for a 1-4 or 1-5 pick.

Why? You'd have your full pool allotment but much for flexibility in how you implement it. Talent in rounds 3-4 wouldn't be low-balled, as there were still legit early round kids available.

Also, in a deep draft, a typical 3rd rounder may need to swallow hard and take a 4th or 5th round bonus when he drops there. I know first hand that players don't like this, but generally understand that "where you get picked is where you get picked". Particularly college players.